Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] ve-safah )ahat

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] ve-safah )ahat
  • Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:08:46 -0700

Dave Washburn wrote:
While I agree that linguists don't generally accept Genesis, it doesn't say that the languages resulting from the Babel confusion were "in any measurable way similar to one another." The fact that people couldn't understand each other suggests just the opposite. So even if there was "a single parent language," there's nothing in the story to indicate that the resulting confusion of languages produced anything resembling said parent language.

I'm not so sure that there's nothing to indicate a resemblance. The language was "babbled" or "mixed up" (BLL), which generally means "mixed together", as in mixing flour with oil. The other key word in the story is "scatter" (PWC): the people's original motivation is to avoid scattering, and God responds by doing exactly what they feared. (They thought that "making a name" would prevent it, and this seems to have been exactly the wrong strategy.)
So the result is a scattering and mixing: people who were united are now separated, and their languages have become mutually unintelligible. But just as the people who are separated were once together, it seems logical that the language has been "mixed" and "scattered" out of its original elements.

You might argue that with only one language to begin with, there aren't different things to mix. But it seems to me that the author's experience was of different related languages, like Hebrew and Aramaic, which present the appearance of a mixture, from the perspective of the other side. (In other words, to a Hebrew speaker, Aramaic seems like Hebrew mixed with something else.) And we do find Hebrew speakers claiming not to understand Aramaic, and vice versa. The languages are mutually unintelligible for some purposes (e.g. construction projects, where precise terminology is needed); but of course a Hebrew speaker can understand a lot of what the Aramaic speaker says.

None of this is to suggest that the account in Gen.11 is, or was ever meant to be, a factual history rather than a myth. I think we miss out on the real meaning when we make that mistake. The meaning of Gen.11:1-9 is far from obvious, and invites interpretation. The implications of "making a name" and "scattering" are obscure. And the traditional reading of (YR WMGDL WR)$W B$MYM is tendentious: it takes a formulaic terminology ("city-and-tower" as a hendiadys for a common architectural pattern; "head in the heavens" as a religious metaphor) and reads it as some kind of sinful "assault" on God, which the story never says at all. In fact, God's motivation here is quite obscure, and I think that's part of the writer's intention. The writer tried to use the partial mutual unintelligibility of the languages familiar to the audience as a metaphor for the partial mutual unintelligibility of each person to others--a situation whose origin indeed remains obscure.


Gabe Eisenstein




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page